Below is an extract from my theory of consciousness. The whole theory can be read here. It tackles the hard problem, so you might find it interesting. Any comments would be appreciated. — Pop

This is a continuation of my comments on your essay : What is consciousness? :

Q. "Everything external to consciousness can be reduced to information, and it is information that consciousness entangles, integrates, and unifies. All information has a quality, so it is always emotional information."
C. Even human consciousness can be reduced to quantitative Information via the scientific method of Reductionism. But we tend to feel that human Consciousness is much more than just mathematical information. It has holistic implications of higher values. such as morality.
* External to human consciousness though, we can no longer have two-way dialogues. We still can't read the minds of single-celled organisms, except to infer automatic responses to inputs via behavior. Yet, Information is still functional in inorganic matter as a chain of Cause & Effect.

Q. "A mind empty of integrated information is unconscious and ineffable"
C. I agree that Consciousness is a form of Integrated Information, in the sense that it arises as a function of the Whole, not the Part --- of the Mind not the Neurons.

Q. "consciousness nevertheless joins the dots and creates something – filling in the blanks, with our beliefs, hopes, and faith."
C. Yes. Presumably, only human Consciousness can connect-the-dots and fill-in-the-blanks with rational inferences and personal subjective feelings. Although, some animals may have some degree of such pattern-recognition.

Q. "Experience and consciousness are often misunderstood."
C. Yes. Some New Agers attribute conscious experiences to all things in the universe. But, I make a distinction between meaningful experiences and mechanical energy exchanges. Atoms exchange Information in the form of energy. But do atoms have emotions and experiences that are meaningful to them? We may imagine so, but we can never know, until they communicate their feelings to us.

Q. "There is no reasonable way to separate consciousness from life. They are two aspects of the
one thing."
C. Again, I would agree with this assertion, if "Information" was substituted for "Consciousness". Non-conscious-matter and Life & Mind are different aspects of Generic Information. But not all living organisms are conscious in the same sense as humans : i.e. Self-conscious ; aware of being conscious. That awareness carries with it moral responsibilities.
So, I do separate all things into two basic categories : A- Universal Information (energy), and B- the special forms of Information that we know as Life & Mind. And only the top level of the information hierarchy has moral implications.

Q. "A bias is an emotion."
C. Yes. Human consciousness is experienced in part via pre-verbal emotions, and expressed via verbal concepts.
However, by assuming that such Consciousness is fundamental, some New Agers believe that inorganic and non-living Crystals are Conscious in some sense. If so, then we should be able to communicate with them, if not in words, then in feelings. I can only say, I'm skeptical.
https://www.findhorn.org/blog/conscious-crystals-with-robert-burlinson/

Q. " [Cells] have a simple emotional consciousness. No brain is required as reason is not present."
C. Yes, but. The New Age notion of "Consciousness" implies that electrons & protons are like little people, with memories, feelings, & biases of their own. If so, then when we cause an electron to "die" (e.g. to lose its charge) we are guilty of murder. Just as "fur is murder", and "meat is murder", then "a discharge of energy is murder". I think that goes to an unwarranted extreme.

Q. "Consciousness is composed of emotional - information . . . We have no experience of unemotional information"
C. Yes. We are only conscious of our feelings. Even our reasons are ultimately reducible to emotions.

Q. "6: A feeling is located as a point on a pain / pleasure spectrum ( PPS)"
C. Yes but, some people -- such as followers of the Jain religion -- carry that notion too far. For example, if I inadvertently step on an ant, does it feel the (human) emotion of Pain? If so, am I guilty of causing pain to a sentient organism? At what "point" can we draw a line on the "spectrum" between Living Beings and Moral Agents?

Q. "This cognizes the instance of consciousness - the point on the pain / pleasure spectrum tells
you what this instance of consciousness means for you."
C. Perhaps we can draw a meaningful & moral distinction between a> Rational Consciousness (humans) and b> Emotional Consciousness (animals) and c> Mechanical Information exchange (atoms).

Q. "In a sense we posses two consciousnesses, one is cellular and emotional, the other is of the
brain and reasonable,"
C. The line between a moral agent and a non-moral entity may be drawn between the cellular-emotional and brain-reasonable types of organisms. If we can't make that obvious distinction, then our ethic would have to give equal value to all organisms & entities.

Q. "What does it feel like to be conscious?"
C. Feeling is the subjective emotional experience that can't be expressed in words or in terms of neurons.

Q. "I have hardly mentioned the brain, as I believe, neuroscience is doing a great job of mapping
the brain, and computational theories of consciousness explain brain functioning very well.
They however do not describe a human being, rather a philosophical zombie."
C. Amen!

NOTE : If the point of my quibbles is not clear : it is an attempt to avoid such satirical comments as "How does a computer sense when I hit the space bar?" and "It hears the space bar's screaming of pain." Hopefully, the technical term "Information" will not be amenable to such puerile ridicule. But then, this is an open philosophical forum. :joke:

— Gnomon

Thanks for your comments. yes they are very similar understandings in many ways. Similar to me, you have taken the information route and that results in a particular understanding. I feel a little embarrassed about my theory as its only six months old but I have found a better understanding. Not that what I've said is necessarily wrong, but it can be understood much better from a process , rather then information perspective. Be warned, I will try to interest you in it. :smile:

Q. "Consciousness can be described as a process of self organisation"
C. Actually, human consciousness is the current state-of-the-art of the evolutionary process of enforming that has been going-on for billions of years. Consciousness is not the process itself, but an expression of that process. "To Enform" is to create a new organization of an older pattern. — Gnomon

Yes originally I also began with information as the first step, and it still figures prominently in there, but now I understand self organization is the overriding process. Information assumes a big bang / beginning, whilst self organization dose not need it. What fundamentally occurred, occurred in motion. As elements settled upon themselves in motion, they were forced to self organize, and order results out of this process. According to Fritjof Capra, the fundamental unit of cognition is a reaction to a disturbance in a state. So cognition occurs fundamentally as a result of a universebiased to self organize. You agree, a bias is emotional information, and this is the fundamental element, causing self organization. This describes the cognition and emotion necessary for consciousness, at the fundamental level, long before life.

Your Informational construction is only a whisker away from my original view. My original view suffered from being a static conception. Once I started to understand it as an evolving process in motion / time, and started to think of myself as a system or process, then it made better sense, in a more abstract way.
The beauty of self organization is that it is the singular process everything is involved in and arises out of, so a solution within this framework might be a total solution. So much to learn though - complexity theory is not very intuitive. :cry:

Q. "Consciousness is an evolving process of self-organisation that has at its root a bias to resist the zero point energy state."
C. Yes. I call that "bias" a ratio -- as in the definition of "energy" as a thermodynamic ratio between polarized states, such as Hot / Cold or Positive / Negative. The bias flows from excess to deficit. — Gnomon

This is my biggest embarrassment. The separation of animate and inanimate matter is not at zero point energy, but at equilibrium and non equilibrium states. Yes energy is at issue, non equilibrium states store energy for a future time.

Q. "Consciousness and life arose together, as without consciousness there can be no life"
C. In my thesis, Life arose from non-conscious in-organic matter, and consciousness emerged much later in evolution. So the "force" that caused Life & Mind to evolve was not Consciousness, but the power of EnFormAction --- one phase of which is Shannon's meaningless data, and another form is the meaningful contents of highly-evolved minds.
If you assume that only living organisms are sentient, Life must emerge prior to Consciousness. Your life-giving notion of Consciousness seems to be something like a Vital Force, or Chi, or Prana. And I agree that EnFormAction is similar, but I prefer to avoid those ancient pre-scientific terms based on the assumption of Spiritualism. — Gnomon

Historically there is a dualist assumption, and this results in different treatment of equilibrium and non equilibrium systems. Everything evolves and so did self organization. I agree there is emergence, and what we experience as consciousness is different to what other organisms experience, but everything seems to be linked through the process of "self organization", and it exhibits all the elements of consciousness..

You are faster at this then I am. Thanks for your patience.

C. Even human consciousness can be reduced to quantitative Information via the scientific method of Reductionism. But we tend to feel that human Consciousness is much more than just mathematical information. It has holistic implications of higher values. such as morality.
* External to human consciousness though, we can no longer have two-way dialogues. We still can't read the minds of single-celled organisms, except to infer automatic responses to inputs via behavior. Yet, Information is still functional in inorganic matter as a chain of Cause & Effect — Gnomon

Yes, human consciousness is waist deep in subjectivity. Ultimately an understanding has to be framed from the first person perspective, but for now I tend to use third person models, so avoid issues such as morality, although my personal bias helps me to frame an understanding within a unifying singularity such as self organization.

We also cannot read each others minds, but we would not deny each other consciousness. Its not that single celled creatures do not possess consciousness, its that they do not possess our particular expression of it. They are expressing self organization, just like we are.

Q. "A mind empty of integrated information is unconscious and ineffable"
C. I agree that Consciousness is a form of Integrated Information, in the sense that it arises as a function of the Whole, not the Part --- of the Mind not the Neurons. — Gnomon

Yes , Its a holistic thing that runs through the all the layers of the system.

Q. "A bias is an emotion."
C. Yes. Human consciousness is experienced in part via pre-verbal emotions, and expressed via verbal concepts.
However, by assuming that such Consciousness is fundamental, some New Agers believe that inorganic and non-living Crystals are Conscious in some sense. If so, then we should be able to communicate with them, if not in words, then in feelings. I can only say, I'm skeptical. — Gnomon

Communication is part verbal ( quantitative ) and part qualia ( qualitative ). We are interpreting the qualia of the object, as we do the animal, as we once ( pre verbally ) would have communicated with each other quite possibly. It is one way communication with solid objects, but jump into a puddle of water and there is two way communication occurring. It requires an open mind.

It is not only a new age thing, but is also the view from a systems perspective.

But do atoms have emotions and experiences that are meaningful to them? We may imagine so, but we can never know, until they communicate their feelings to us. — Gnomon

That is the issue - meaningful to them, it is unlikely to be meaningful to us. "Self organization" is innately meaningful, in that cognition is a reaction to a disturbance of a state, and then a bias to self organize kicks in to integrate the state. Its perfect! - how does this sit with your model of the mechanism of consciousness?

Q. "6: A feeling is located as a point on a pain / pleasure spectrum ( PPS)"
C. Yes but, some people -- such as followers of the Jain religion -- carry that notion too far. For example, if I inadvertently step on an ant, does it feel the (human) emotion of Pain? If so, am I guilty of causing pain to a sentient organism? At what "point" can we draw a line on the "spectrum" between Living Beings and Moral Agents? — Gnomon

I don't think we can draw a line, but have to accept that by virtue of taking up space on this planet we will deny space to other life forms, so the trick is to minimize the harm, and maximize the good. A concept of universal interrelatedness as a foundational notion would help achieve this end.

Q. "This cognizes the instance of consciousness - the point on the pain / pleasure spectrum tells
you what this instance of consciousness means for you."
C. Perhaps we can draw a meaningful & moral distinction between a> Rational Consciousness (humans) and b> Emotional Consciousness (animals) and c> Mechanical Information exchange (atoms) — Gnomon

I tend to think meaning and moral issues can be rationalized back to the pain or pleasure they cause. Self organization is "self" interested. It creates and maintains a self in the best possible way. We open up a Pandora's box if we investigate how this manifests itself in human subjectivity.

Morality is steeped in human subjectivity. It is based on various beliefs. Nevertheless in society the various belief systems at play "self organize" to a commonly understood standard of behavior.

Q. "What does it feel like to be conscious?"
C. Feeling is the subjective emotional experience that can't be expressed in words or in terms of neurons — Gnomon

I agree, feeling cannot be conceptualized. This is what leads me to believe it is a force. One that is understood by all the layers of the system creating us. Thus it is also attributable to all self organizing systems.


Thanks for having a look and providing some feedback. I have to work for the next few months, but after that hope to revise and expand it. I will check out your theory again and provide some comments. Is there a relevant thread open?

:up:

Yes originally I also began with information as the first step, and it still figures prominently in there, but now I understand self organization is the overriding process. — Pop

Hold-on now. You were on a reasonable path. So don't go off on an irrational tangent. :joke:

Information assumes a big bang / beginning, whilst self organization dose not need it. — Pop

Self-organization is indeed a function of the ubiquity of Information. Yet I doubt that spontaneous organization can occur prior to the existence of a "Self" with the power to "organize" (to create order). The physical universe is indeed in the midst of a process of self-organization. It's like a computer program that runs on the system's inherent energy, and is guided by an operating system of rules for self-organization. In the terms of my thesis, the universal program is described as a process of En-Form-Action. But nothing in our real world experience is completely spontaneous, without precedent. Instead, just as every program has a Programmer, every causal process has a First Cause. Unless it is Self-Existent of course, which is a necessary quality of a First Cause, or Creator. So, I question the conclusion to the quote above.

Recent theories of Cosmology have proposed that our universe did not begin with a "bang", but with a spontaneous (un-caused) Fluctuation in a pre-existing energy field. I assume that this was another attempt to avoid the inadvertent religious implications of the Big Bang as a creation event, requiring some kind of "external agent". Yes, in the real rational world, "spontaneous events" may appear out-of-nowhere, like an "immaculate conception", but logically & physically, there is always some necessary-but-unknown prior Cause -- perhaps an absentee baby-daddy, or maybe the Initial Link in the unbroken chain of causation that can be inferentially tracked back to a First Cause, or at least a Higher Context.

Whatever it is, the Prime Cause must provide "sufficient energy" for the evolutionary process of building a universe from scratch. And, in this constructive scenario, the random raw power of Cosmic Energy must also be ordered & channeled by logical laws of organization (natural laws), or else the result would be a destructive explosion that goes nowhere. What I'm saying here is that the hypothetical Original Cause, of apparently-spontaneous-organization, is necessarily an "external agent" combining explosive Power with teleological Direction (energy + order). Even Hawking's "No Boundary" theory was based on the hypothetical assumption of an eternal realm of unlimited Possibility : The Wave-Function. Yet even that unlimited Potential would contain nothing Actual, until it was triggered by some internal or external "Perturbation".

Therefore, a process without a beginning just doesn't make sense, logically or physically. And Hawking's retort to "what came before the Big Bang" was open-ended and ambiguous. From the perspective of his isolated (no context) mathematical model, he said, "it's like asking what's north of the North Pole". But in our real world, what's north of the North Pole, is a whole universe in the process of becoming. My thesis did not begin with the assumption of a particular First Cause. But as the concept of Creative Information evolved, it became obvious that some kind of Enformer was logically unavoidable. :cool:

Self-organization : Self-organization, also called (in the social sciences) spontaneous order, is a process where some form of overall order arises from local interactions between parts of an initially disordered system. The process can be spontaneous when sufficient energy is available, not needing control by any external agent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization

Spontaneous : happening, especially in a living thing, without being caused by something outside, or without the organism's control

Perturbation : 2. a deviation of a system, moving object, or process from its regular or normal state or path, caused by an outside influence.

Agency : 2. action or intervention, especially such as to produce a particular effect.

The No-Boundary Universe : "Hartle and Hawking derived a formula describing the whole shuttlecock — the so-called “wave function of the universe” that encompasses the entire past, present and future at once — making moot all contemplation of seeds of creation, a creator, or any transition from a time before."
“It was just not possible quantum mechanically for a universe to start in the way they imagined.”
https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-debate-hawkings-idea-that-the-universe-had-no-beginning-20190606/
NOTE : " encompasses the entire past, present and future at once" -- to me that sounds like an eternal world-creating deity. "A rose by any other name . . . ."

The Enformer :
* AKA, the Creator. The presumed eternal source of all information, as encoded in the Big Bang Sing-ularity. That ability to convert conceptual Forms into actual Things, to transform infinite possibilities into finite actualities, and to create space & time, matter & energy from essentially no-thing is called the power of EnFormAction. Due to our ignorance of anything beyond space-time though, the postulated enforming agent remains undefined. I simply label it "G*D".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Self-organization is indeed a function of the ubiquity of Information. Yet I doubt that spontaneous organization can occur prior to the existence of a "Self" with the power to "organize" (to create order). — Gnomon

Yes I thought this would be a problem for you, but it may also be a solution. I find you have an intelligent conception of God, not an anthropocentric biblical God, but a creative force like element, and " self organization " is just such an element? :smile: God would have to self create? No. So god may have arose from self organization? :chin:

Instead, just as every program has a Programmer, every causal process has a First Cause. Unless it is Self-Existent of course, which is a necessary quality of a First Cause, or Creator. — Gnomon

Again, If god self created, then he is not the causal element, self organization is. But might God be self organization? Its just a thought. :smile:

I am only beginning to understand self organization, but my first impression is that it is organization that causes a self.

Recent theories of Cosmology have proposed that our universe did not begin with a "bang", but with a spontaneous (un-caused) Fluctuation in a pre-existing energy field. I assume that this was another attempt to avoid the inadvertent religious implications of the Big Bang as a creation event, requiring some kind of "external agent". Yes, in the real rational world, "spontaneous events" may appear out-of-nowhere, like an "immaculate conception", but logically & physically, there is always some necessary-but-unknown prior Cause -- perhaps an absentee baby-daddy, or maybe the Initial Link in the unbroken chain of causation that can be inferentially tracked back to a First Cause, or at least a Higher Context. — Gnomon

Yeah, its all a bit unreliable to my mind. I tend to favor the infinite loop universe conception, but it is so far from where we are and so little reliable information to go on. So I'm blocking it out of consideration and starting from when the universe settled in on itself and started to self organize.

What I'm saying here is that the hypothetical Original Cause, of apparently-spontaneous-organization, is necessarily an "external agent" combining explosive Power with teleological Direction (energy + order). Even Hawking's "No Boundary" theory was based on the hypothetical assumption of an eternal realm of unlimited Possibility : — Gnomon

Yes I agree, as far as I can logically figure it, there has to be an external cause. "Nothing" is an incoherent concept. If it fluctuates its not nothing, and so the causal chain recedes ever further back.

Therefore, a process without a beginning just doesn't make sense, logically or physically. And Hawking's retort to "what came before the Big Bang" was open-ended and ambiguous. From the perspective of his isolated (no context) mathematical model, he said, "it's like asking what's north of the North Pole". But in our real world, what's north of the North Pole, is a whole universe in the process of becoming. My thesis did not begin with the assumption of a particular First Cause. But as the concept of Creative Information evolved, it became obvious that some kind of Enformer was logically unavoidable. :cool: — Gnomon

Given the lack of certain information about the beginning, I'm inclined to start my narrative as the universe began to self organize. As order came into being it had all the hallmarks of consciousness - the cognition and bias ( emotional information ) to organize . It organized the energy into matter, and ever more complex permutations of information energy and matter ensue.

Creative information: Yes, but I think the creativity results from a bias ( emotional information ) towards order. The ordered state is a creation. The form of what is created is endlessly variable and open ended, but is always an expression of self organization.

Thanks for the links. I'm out of time today, but will check them out and give you some feedback tomorrow. Cheers :smile:

Yes I thought this would be a problem for you, but it may also be a solution. I find you have an intelligent conception of God, not an anthropocentric biblical God, but a creative force like element, and " self organization " is just such an element? :smile: God would have to self create? No. So god may have arose from self organization? — Pop

Self-organization, in the real world, is not a problem for me. We see it happen all around us. I once saw a time-lapse video -- to illustrate Rupert Sheldrake's theory of Morphogenesis -- of a seedling growing into a plant. The various elements of the plant somehow found their way to their final location as-if they knew where to go. Most scientists assumed the necessary "knowledge" was encoded in the DNA of the original seed. But Sheldrake postulated a Morphogenetic Field that guides each element to its correct place in the whole system. I don't think a literal external field is necessary though. That's because each element of the growing plant "communicates" with other elements via chemical signals (information). That exchange of self-organizing information is internal to the system, not an outside force.

The causal "creative force" of my thesis (EnFormAction) does indeed result in Self-Organization. But the S-O is an effect, not the cause. Likewise, the Enformer of our world is assumed to be eternal, hence self-existent, not self-organized. All of the scientific theories proposed to explain the contingent existence of our world, assume the prior existence of eternal Energy & Laws. And that's what EnFormAction is : the raw power to create, and the design criteria (blueprint ; program) necessary to guide the energy as it constructs a world of many forms. :smile:

Morphogenetic Field : https://www.sheldrake.org/research/morphic-resonance/introduction

EnFormAction :
* Metaphorically, it's the Will-power of G*D, which is the First Cause of everything in creation. Aquinas called the Omnipotence of God the "Primary Cause", so EFA is the general cause of everything in the world. Energy, Matter, Gravity, Life, Mind are secondary creative causes, each with limited application.
* All are also forms of Information, the "difference that makes a difference". It works by directing causation from negative to positive, cold to hot, ignorance to knowledge. That's the basis of mathematical ratios (Greek "Logos", Latin "Ratio" = reason). A : B :: C : D. By interpreting those ratios we get meaning and reasons.
* The concept of a river of causation running through the world in various streams has been interpreted in materialistic terms as Momentum, Impetus, Force, Energy, etc, and in spiritualistic idioms as Will, Love, Conatus, and so forth. EnFormAction is all of those.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

I am only beginning to understand self organization, but my first impression is that it is organization that causes a self. — Pop

I suspect that your definition of "Organization" might be similar to my notion of EnFormAction. EFA is the causal force in the world. It causes random matter to become ordered into organisms. So, EFA is the power to organize. :nerd:

Yes I agree, as far as I can logically figure it, there has to be an external cause. — Pop

Yes. Even Hawking's atheistic "No-Boundary" hypothesis of world creation assumes the eternal existence of Energy & Natural Laws (Organization or Information). Logically, those prerequisites must be external to the world system that began, either with a bang, or from a fluctuation. :chin:

Creative information: Yes, but I think the creativity results from a bias ( emotional information ) towards order. — Pop

Yes. I think what you call "Organization" is the same thing that I call "Information" or "EnFormAction". They all have a bias or inclination toward order rather than disorder. I like Plato's story of how our Cosmos (organized matter) emerged from primordial Chaos (unformed potential). We seem to be talking about the same concept, but using different terminology. :grin:

Chaos :
In ancient Greek creation myths Chaos was the void state preceding the creation of the universe or cosmos. It literally means "emptiness", but can also refer to a random undefined unformed state that was changed into the orderly law-defined enformed Cosmos. In modern Cosmology, Chaos can represent the eternal/infinite state from which the Big Bang created space/time. In that sense of infinite Potential, it is an attribute of G*D, whose power of EnFormAction converts possibilities (Platonic Forms) into actualities (physical things).
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page12.html

I found your website well written and interesting, you have an easy to read style, and there was lots of good information. I found navigating the site a little awkward. There were lots of interesting snippets on the side of the pages that I would have liked to read more of, but couldn't easily navigate to. Have you thought about hyperlinking the texts on the side of the pages to the main document?

I find you have a broad understanding, and we make fairly similar observations, and as you state often its only the terminology that differs. Of course we are going to differ on the issue of God.

What I don't understand is why do you need to postulate a theory when you have a belief in God? It seems what you are saying is , hey look I understand all this stuff, but God still makes more sense? Would this be correct?

I feel when people speak of God, it is a little like speaking about art, in that it is a different thing in everybody's mind - it is a variable mental construct. Do you have a definition of God? The reason I ask is because " self organization" is looking to be a God like concept to me. Every theory relies on some concept to tie off loose ends, and to unify the theory, and normally it is the fundamental element, and self organization dose this for me, whilst God dose it for you. :smile:

Yes the only alternative to a self organizing god is a self existent one, just as the only alternative to a big bang / beginning, is an infinite loop universe. :smile: It is amusing.

I am finding complexity theory quite helpful in making new connections. I have posted the below in another part of the forum. I wonder if you would mind scrutinizing it for me?

In accordance with complexity theory:

The qualia ( or quality ) of disparate elements, when combined, may form a synergy. The synergy is an emergent quality not found in any of the elements individually.. The form of the synergy is a random property, depending upon the qualities of the elements combined.

1.The synergy of atoms combined forms molecules
2. The synergy of molecules combined forms amino acids
3. the synergy of amino acids combined forms proteins: (100% confidence level)
4. the synergy of proteins combined forms cells: 100%
5. The synergy of cells combined forms organs: 100%
6. The synergy of organs combined forms bodies: 100%
7. The synergy of bodies combined forms families, communities, a nation, etc

Each layer of the system is caused by self organization, which is a "fundamental" universal quality, in a universe biased to self organize. Or put another way; the synergy is a function of self organization.

Each layer of the system is its own idiomatic milieu, where the problems of the milieu are cognized and resolved collectively.

Every moment of human consciousness is a moment of self organization. Many people can relate to this assertion intuitively in that consciousness is in some way self organization, but I mean it absolutely! :smile:

I do wonder if your notion of 'synergy' actually accounts for anything. It simply says - 'look, all these things work together' - which is what 'synegy' means.

What is lacking is a sense of telos, of purpose - that things work together for a common goal or end.

Every level of an organism is organised for the purposes of the survival of that organism.

However, the concept of 'purpose' or 'telos' has forcefully rejected by modern evolutionary theory, on the grounds that it invokes a quality which cannot be quantified. Evolutionary biology simply assumes that the goal of any organism is to propogate or replicate. The question of why organisms seek to replicate is not considered, it is simply one of the givens of biology (a 'boundary condition' of the science, one might say.)

Sheldrake postulated a Morphogenetic Field that guides each element to its correct place in the whole system. — Gnomon

Sheldrake (whom I most admire) is a scientiific maverick whose views are almost universally rejected by mainstream science. John Maddox, editor of Nature magazine, famously titled his scornful review of Sheldrake's first book 'A Book for Burning', saying it should be scorned by scientists for the same reason Galileo was scorned by the Church - that it was heresy, and magical thinking.

What is lacking is a sense of telos, of purpose - that things work together for a common goal or end. — Wayfarer

Its difficult to relate to the idium of a cellular existence, but consider the synergy of a school of fish

I fished all the time when I was younger, and spent considerable hours considering that. (Great photo, by the way.)

But the fact of synergy is not self-explanatory, and neither is 'self-organisation'. What is lacking is precisely an explanatory principle. To say that that organisation exists on many levels - inorganic, organic, sentient - doesn't explain anything, it's just an observation.

To say that that organisation exists on many levels - inorganic, organic, sentient - doesn't explain anything, it's just an observation. — Wayfarer

It is self organization that exists, not just organization.

You need to reflect upon the fact and link it back to your own consciousness, via the assertion that every moment of human consciousness is a moment of self organization - absolutely!

From a systems perspective, we are an amalgam of elements, very much like a school of fish. It is organization that creates a self ( self organization ). The school of fish becomes a self. The synergy of the school forms a self. Theself of the school of fish is an emergent self driven property.

Along these lines an understanding can form, in my opinion. It is the broad thrust of complexity theory, as I understand it.

How does that account for cancer, or any other disease? Is that ‘self disorganization’?

How does that account for cancer, or any other disease? Is that ‘self disorganization’? — Wayfarer

Ha, there is a description of Prions in the awareness of molecules thread. My understanding is cancer evolves along a similar path. Things go wrong, and ultimately we die and disintegrate - no longer self organized. Our components become part of something else's self organization. Our genetic code however usually gets past on and remains immortal. :smile:

Have you thought about hyperlinking the texts on the side of the pages to the main document? — Pop

In the Enformationism thesis, side-notes are mostly quotes from the Bibliography listed under the "Information" tab.

In the BothAnd Blog, many sidebar notes have links at the bottom. Some also have pop-ups to longer notes. Just click on the "http:" URL at the end of the notes. More important links are indicated with an arrow, indicating that you can click on the note to see more on that topic. I also have a Glossary of special terminology with unique definitions as they apply to my personal thesis. :smile:

http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/

What I don't understand is why do you need to postulate a theory when you have a belief in God? — Pop

I no longer have a religious belief in the Bible God. So, I had to re-construct my personal worldview from scratch. My current notion of a Nature G*D is the "god of the philosophers", which is always debatable. It's also not a matter of faith, but merely an unprovable Axiom for my thesis. Unfortunately, that Deist axiom is not accepted by Theists or Atheists. :naughty:

The God of the Philosophers :
Of course, their god is not a father in the sky they say, but rather the ground of being or fine-tuner of the universe or something even more esoteric. What my reader wondered was what such theoretical deities have to do with the beliefs of typical religious believers? In other words, how does a proof of an abstract god square with the god most of the faithful profess to believe? . . . . Little did my reader know that he has stumbled upon a problem that had baffled Christian thinkers from Pascal to Kierkegaard right up to the present time.
https://reasonandmeaning.com/2015/06/05/jb-sci-and-rel/

Axiom : (Math) a statement or proposition on which an abstractly defined structure is based.

The reason I ask is because " self organization" is looking to be a God like concept to me. — Pop

Since my thesis is primarily based on the cutting-edge concept of Information as the "substance" of both Mind & Matter, I followed that logic to conclude that a First Cause or Enformer was necessary for the thesis to make sense. Speaking of Logic, one of the philosophical terms I use to characterize my non-traditional notion of G*D is "LOGOS". According to Plato, it was the rational self-organizing force permeating the universe. But, he distinguished Logos from Mythos, which was his name for the anthro-morphic gods of the Greeks. :halo:

Logos :
In Enformationism, it is the driving force of Evolution, Logos is the cause of all organization, and of all meaningful patterns in the world. It’s not a physical force though, but a metaphysical cause that can only be perceived by Reason, not senses or instruments.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

Energy is Information : Aristotle used the term “energeia” (action) to describe the primal force that imparted momentum (energy of motion) to the physical universe. And his action principle was borrowed by modern scientists as their label for what we now call “energy”, which is the power to cause change. But the Greek usage also implied that the aboriginal Actor (Logos) was sentient in some sense. However, that imputation of consciousness was omitted by the pragmatic scientists, who had no need for the idealistic aspect of the hypothesis. As a result, their mechanical definition of “Energy” as a “scalar physical quantity” contrasts with the phenomenal definition as an attribute of matter (the ability to do work) . That mysterious property (qualia) of matter turns out to be a metaphysical, mathematical abstraction for which they had no explanation other than it just is. Energy is never observed as a physical thing unto itself, apart from matter–-just like Information .
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page15.html

The mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794

Do you have a definition of God? The reason I ask is because " self organization" is looking to be a God like concept to me. — Pop

I don't normally define G*D as "self-organization", because I view Logos as the eternal power to organize, which was imparted to the temporal world in the Big Bang act of creation. Hence, the specific instances of self-organization we observe in the world are secondary to the universal power to create organized organisms. :nerd:

G*D :
* An ambiguous spelling of the common name for a supernatural deity. The Enformationism thesis is based upon an unprovable axiom that our world is an idea in the mind of G*D. This eternal deity is not imagined in a physical human body, but in a meta-physical mathematical form, equivalent to Logos. Other names : ALL, BEING, Creator, Enformer, MIND, Nature, Reason, Source, Programmer. The eternal Whole of which all temporal things are a part is not to be feared or worshiped, but merely appreciated as the designer/organizer of the marvelous evolving system we know as Nature.
* I refer to the logically necessary and philosophically essential First & Final Cause as G*D, rather than merely "X" the Unknown, partly out of respect. That’s because the ancients were not stupid, to infer purposeful agencies, but merely shooting in the dark. We now understand the "How" of Nature much better, but not the "Why". That inscrutable agent of Entention is what I mean by G*D.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

Or put another way; the synergy is a function of self organization. — Pop

In Giulio Tononi's Integrated Information Theory, phi (ф) is a measure of the system's integrated information, its degree of wholeness. And "wholeness" is another name for Synergy, as in "the whole is more than the sum of its parts". On that basis, neuroscientist Christof Koch now equates Consciousness with Synergy. Going out on a professional limb, he says, "So consciousness is a property not only of brains, but of all matter". However, as usual, I prefer to save the term "consciousness" for the most highly-evolved forms of Generic Information. :nerd:

Sheldrake (whom I most admire) is a scientiific maverick whose views are almost universally rejected by mainstream science. John Maddox, editor of Nature magazine, famously titled his scornful review of Sheldrake's first book 'A Book for Burning', saying it should be scorned by scientists for the same reason Galileo was scorned by the Church - that it was heresy, and magical thinking. — Wayfarer

Yes. I think Sheldrake was on the right track in his theory of Morphogenesis. But his presentation of the ideas sounds a lot like New Age mysticism. That's why I prefer to use the more prosaic terminology of Enformationism. Of course, for those not familiar with the cutting-edge physics that equates Information with both Mass and Energy, my own theory is often dismissed as Mysticism -- despite my assertion that no Magic is required beyond that of Quantum queerness. However, I can't deny that it is heretical to the outdated paradigm of Materialism. :cool:

That's why I prefer to use the more prosaic terminology of Enformationism. — Gnomon

Oh, you're at least as New Age as Sheldrake. In fact, you make him seem quite prosaic. :-)

I do wonder if your notion of 'synergy' actually accounts for anything. It simply says - 'look, all these things work together' - which is what 'synegy' means.
What is lacking is a sense of telos, of purpose - that things work together for a common goal or end. — Wayfarer

Synergy does imply a direction, if not a specific goal, that a multi-part machine works toward. But it does not necessarily imply a self-conscious Purpose. For example, a thermostat is composed of several different components that, when working in cooperation, produce a specific result. But we can't say that the thermostat "wants" to keep warm. That purpose must be supplied from outside the system, by a conscious programmer. Likewise, our evolving world seems to be working toward producing sub-systems of greater complexity and synergy. But, for what purpose?

The Bible implies that the reason for God to create intelligent creatures was to provide an egoistic deity with worshipers who are able to appreciate the power & benevolence of their creator. As long as those creatures are sufficiently pious, they will be rewarded with blessings & bounty of a "land flowing with milk and honey". But after a while, some of those creatures noticed that God's benevolence was also distributed to the impious and unjust. So, they concluded that their true reward would be postponed indefinitely until a new world was created only for the pious. But then, what was the point (purpose) of this present life full of pain & suffering?

Believers then revised their notion of the purpose of this imperfect world to that of a temporary device for sorting out the chosen people (saints) from the sinners. That still didn't make sense to me, so I came to doubt that the telos of our world was focused on slavish piety. Instead, the teleology of the evolving world seems to focused more on the process than on some unspecified future product. Hence, the purpose of each life is to Live a unique story. Beyond that, I can't say. I could, like Teilhard deChardin, speculate on some ultimate teleological Omega Point. But that would be an un-educated guess.

Therefore, although I see signs of Synergy & Teleology in the world, I can't predict how the story ends, whether in "fire or in ice". Instead, I can only exercise what little FreeWill I have, over my own Synergy & Teleology & Purpose. Then, the final outcome of zillions of free choices may add-up to something wonderful or awful. But, I don't expect to be around to appreciate it. Instead, I'll just try to enjoy the ride -- bumps and all. :cool:

Divine Justice :
Father which is in heaven: for he maketh. his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, ... his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and. sends rain on the just and the unjust.
___Matthew 5:45

Ecclesiastes :
1 To every thing there is a season, A time for every purpose under heaven . . .
18 I also said to myself, “As for humans, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. 19 Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath[c]; humans have no advantage over animals. Everything is meaningless. 20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. 21 Who knows if the human spirit rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?” 22 So I saw that there is nothing better for a person than to enjoy their work, because that is their lot. For who can bring them to see what will happen after them?

PS___ Tononi's theory of Integrated Information, and its inherent Synergy or Holism, implies that its "cause--effect power is completely reducible to that of its parts", with no overriding divine purpose. But my thesis of Enformationism implies that there must be some Intention motivating such a cosmic creation. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to divine what that holistic function might be. So, I'll just have to take it on faith, that "all's well that end's well". :blush:

Oh, you're at least as New Age as Sheldrake. — Wayfarer

Oh no! I'm not a New Ager, but a New Paradigmer. :yum:

That purpose must be supplied from outside the system, by a conscious programmer. Likewise, our evolving world seems to be working toward producing sub-systems of greater complexity and synergy. But, for what purpose? — Gnomon

According to complexity theory the result of the greater system ( the synergized self ) is a product of the local interaction of its component parts. There is a domino like causation occurring , and spreading wavelike across the synergized system, resulting in emergent behavior. The effect of "self organization" is inherently to create a self from elements entirely outside of self. So there is no need for external causation ( creator ) at all. The ungrounded decentralized self, still has to weave its way through the possibilities and constraints of its external environment whilst maintaining its integrity . This is difficult enough. It is purpose enough. It is an amazing achievement. It should be appreciated and valued. The life we have is a gift

At the same time, the self whilst possessing its own emergent internal self organized order, is entirely reacting to external circumstances. It is cognizing (via disturbance to its integrity) and reintegrating the disturbance via the bias to self organize. This last sentence describes the mechanism of consciousness as best I can resolve it. It applies to all layers of the cascade as previously described. The self is well characterized by a cyclone / hurricane.

I no longer have a religious belief in the Bible God. So, I had to re-construct my personal worldview from scratch. My current notion of a Nature G*D is the "god of the philosophers", — Gnomon

This simple explanation puts a whole different light on things for me. I mistook G*D for "we mustn't speak his name", so this clouded my whole attitude. In going over your website I find your understanding broad and reasonable - very similar to my own. I could pick a few bones as you also have, but I don't see the point, we both know what we are doing.

As to whether our understanding is cutting edge though, I wonder. I tend to feel our understanding is still a little Newtonian and linear. I feel it is a complicated system we are describing, and a better understanding seems to be in reach from the complexity perspective.

Anyway - well done, and keep up the good work. :up:

Therefore, although I see signs of Synergy & Teleology in the world, I can't predict how the story ends, — Gnomon

The story currently doesn't have an ending. We create the story through self organization, where the story continually emerges.

Self organization fits beautifully as the cause of evolution where the main thrust is determined, but with a slight random element. This is not philosophical conjecture but observation of evolving systems like Covid19, which has a main thrust but slight variation to the left and right thus taking into account the probabilistic horizon it is venturing into. We do the same. There is a main thrust to humanity ( as a self organizing system ) with slight variation to the left and right - the synergy of this variability within the earths ecology is the story.

Does it have an ending? It looks to me we are, foot to the floor, heading toward a climatic and ecological cliff. It would not be a full stop ending of course, but there will be some very substantial rationalization heading into the future.

The effect of "self organization" is inherently to create a self from elements entirely outside of self. So there is no need for external causation ( creator ) at all. — Pop

I think your concept of nature's ability to organize new systems from local interactions -- as the route to consciousness -- is on the right track. But I still maintain that the system we call Nature could not organize itself from nothing. And that talent for creating order from chaos is not an accident. It's what I call EnFormAction. Both the local elements and the causal force originate outside the Self.

So, here are a couple of quibbles : a> when a sub-system becomes organized as a recognizable “Self” or “holon”, it displays new properties that were not manifest in the local cause. It's a new unique being, not just another isolated particle. That's the basic principle of Holism, and of Arthur Koestler's definition of “holons”, the “whole is more than the sum of its parts”. b> when a row of dominos is tipped over, there is a chain reaction of cause & effect. But, without an “external causation”, nothing happens. So, the need for a First Cause remains, to get the process of on-going organization started. The “falling dominos” are an internal effect of an external cause. And the "more than" is novel properties that were not in the local elements. What you are describing is Morphodynamics, but Life & Mind have properties that are not found in ordinary Energy or Matter.

Your image of a hurricane is apt, though. In his book, Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter, Terrence Deacon uses the apparently spontaneous formation of a whirlpool as an example of natural emergence and self-organization. However, "The disturbances from which the whirlpool emerges are external to it, whereas the dynamics of life are internal and also end-directed. Deacon calls this end-directedness "teleodynamics," which is different from “morphodynamics” (self-organizing or form-producing dynamics). An understanding of how he makes the incredible leap from morphodynamics (a primitive system) to teleodynamics (a complex, autopoietic system) requires reading the book. " https://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/07/27/terrence-deacon-and-the-nature-of-constraints :cool:

The Organizing Force : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

It is cognizing (via disturbance to its integrity) and reintegrating the disturbance via the bias to self organize. This last sentence describes the mechanism of consciousness as best I can resolve it. — Pop

Your description of the “cognizing” process is correct, as far as it goes. Yet again, it omits the requirement for an external Cognizer or Creator to design the cosmic “mechanism” in such a way that it produces the output we call “Consciousness”. That output is not a physical product, but the ongoing process of Knowing. It's the "intelligent design" of the machine that imparts the Potential for actualization of Mind from Matter. Like Paley's Watch in a field, our experience with reality makes the spontaneous appearance of such a functional machine unlikely. (Note : Yes, it's the old Intelligent Design argument, which only works for a Deist-god, not a Bible-god)

In my own thesis of how Mind emerged from Matter, which emerged from who-knows-what, I initially tried to avoid the First Cause assumption. But the logic of the whole process of evolution always points back to an otherwise unexplainable beginning. Multiverse theories simply argue that it's turtles-all-the-way-down. But that's not an answer, it's infinite regress. The only plausible answer is Teleology. :nerd:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

Both the local elements and the causal force originate outside the Self. — Gnomon

Yes they originate from the universal Bias to self organize, and from elements external to self. The self is caused initially, and then takes on a momentum of its own.

it omits the requirement for an external Cognizer or Creator to design the cosmic “mechanism” in such a way that it produces the output we call “Consciousness”. — Gnomon

There is a mechanism to self organization that is equivalent to the mechanism of consciousness, as I see it. But its early days yet, and I'm still working on the details.

Turtles all the way. Yeah, I don't see a way around it. :smile:

But thanks for your input. :up:

Yes they originate from the universal Bias to self organize, and from elements external to self. The self is caused initially, and then takes on a momentum of its own. — Pop

Again, we are using different terminology to describe the same phenomenon. What you call "Universal Bias", I call Enformy. It's a natural inclination or tendency toward complexity & progress, which counteracts the disorganizing & destructive effects of Entropy, allowing such highly-organized phenomena as Life & Mind to emerge from the randomized mechanical procedures of Evolution. As described in mathematical terms, it's a ratio or relationship between two things. When that ratio is balanced (1 : 1), nothing happens. When it's biased toward one pole (2 : 1), it tips the balance in a positive direction. But when it's biased toward the opposite pole (1 : 2), it shifts the balance in a negative direction.

Since highly-organized systems in nature seem to be rare and fleeting, Physicists at first didn't pay attention to the positive effects of innate Bias. Moreover, Energy seems to flow both ways. So, they first came up with a name for negative thermodynamic change : "Entropy". Only as an afterthought did they think to label the opposite of Entropy as "negentropy". But I think the more euphonic term "Enformy" better suits the positive aspects of natural evolutionary Bias.

Donald Watson defined Enformy simply as "the capacity to organize". And he viewed Consciousness as the current pinnacle of "enformed systems" in the world. Unfortunately, he seemed to assume that everything in the world is conscious to some degree. Which led him to include all sorts of New Age magic & mysticism in his theory. However, since I reserve the "consciousness" label for only the human sort of self-awareness, all other enformed systems are viewed as merely various forms of mundane Information, otherwise known as "Energy". :smile:


Bias : A bias is a tendency, inclination, or prejudice toward or against something or someone.

Entropy : 2. lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder.

Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce Order & Complexity & Progress.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Theory of Enformed Systems : http://www.vxm.com/link.enformytheory.html

Information :
Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

Self organization fits beautifully as the cause of evolution where the main thrust is determined, but with a slight random element. — Pop

That is also how I view Evolution. Many scientists emphasize the "random element" to conclude that it has no direction, no teleology. But Natural Selection seems to apply specific criteria to define fitness for each fork in the chain of causation. That specification is a result of what I call "EnFormAction", Pure randomness would have no direction or pattern. But enformed randomness provides a degree of freedom within the constraints of cause & effect determinism. :wink:

EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy.

When that ratio is balanced (1 : 1), nothing happens. When it's biased toward one pole (2 : 1), it tips the balance in a positive direction. But when it's biased toward the opposite pole (1 : 2), it shifts the balance in a negative direction. — Gnomon

:up: In complexity theory , the 1:1 situation is called an equilibrium state, whilst a 2: 1 is a far from equilibrium state. 1: 2 would be a disintegration.

What you call "Universal Bias", I call Enformy. It's a natural inclination or tendency toward complexity & progress — Gnomon

Yes our constructions are similar for sure. How do you resolve the bias, or natural tendency or inclination towards order. As far as I can reason it, it is emotional information. The universe could have been an infinite number of different ways, but it chose just one way of being - a being towards order. At least in the local universe, and in local time. It suggests a bias, or inclination as you say, is also fundamental, or at least in the local vicinity it is fundamental. As a result we have this bias within us. It is how I understand emotions. They incline the system towards order. Have you thought about this?

Teleology is also used by complexity theory. Central to the self organizing system is an attractor, rather then a causal element, that is not to say causation can be excluded . But the system forms a swarm for some reason, and that reason is the attractor. In space, gravity would be the attractor that elements find themselves captured by, and forced to self organize. It is a similar situation for a being finding themselves thrown into and captured by life and being forced to self organize, both mind and body - totally. This seems like a god starting point to me, for a narrative of what I think it is all about - a first person perspective.

But enformed randomness provides a degree of freedom within the constraints of cause & effect determinism. :wink: — Gnomon

:up:

Unfortunately, he seemed to assume that everything in the world is conscious to some degree. — Gnomon

This is the correct view, but it requires careful expression. It seems frustratingly stupid to me, to think we can posses a singular quality nothing else in the universe possesses, although it is the prevalent dogma. We have a higher functioning form of consciousness, but everything possesses it to some degree. Finding the right way to express this is the trick. Biology focused on cellular complexity and quantum biology are making great strides in this direction.

The hard problem of consciousness is only hard from a dualists perspective, from a monists - its hard to see there is a problem! :cool:

Bias : A bias is a tendency, inclination, or prejudice toward or against something or someone. — Gnomon

- an emotion! Can an emotion be fundamental? Can an emotion explain the why of gravity, and physical laws? Does it underpin Enformy?

If it feels good – you continue

If it feels bad – you think again, or initiate a plan of action to avert the potential pain. — Pop

What about self destructive states of mind where pain and suffering is attributed the pleasureful condition/ target of achievement. For the sadist or masochist... this is the goal not the aversive state. It is possible the existence of a state of consciousness that wishes to not be conscious (ie wishes to be dead). A true definition or theory of consciousness bust account for suicide or suicidal ideation or at least self detriment

For the sadist or masochist — Benj96

This is a form of pleasure for some people. It improves their climax!

It is possible the existence of a state of consciousness that wishes to not be conscious (ie wishes to be dead) — Benj96

This too would be a function of self organization - it would be a way to resolve a currently perceived irresolvable situation - "I'd rather die then live with this". Living with this would be a life of miserable pain - within some belief systems. It is the miserable pain, and the perception that there is no resolution to it, which also has its own momentum, thus an anticipation of still worse misery that leads people to end it all. They decide they have had enough suffering, there is no hope of joy, and so they decide no feeling is preferable to a life of painful suffering.

The pain pleasure spectrum is personally constructed and quite convoluted - needing to accommodate the personal subjectivity ( belief system ) of individuals. What is pain to one person, can be a pleasure to another. Not only mentally but also physically, some people just don't feel much pain, whilst others feel the slightest.

How do you resolve the bias, or natural tendency or inclination towards order. As far as I can reason it, it is emotional information. — Pop

I suspect that what you call "emotional information" is what I'm calling "intention". Repeated signs of intention (directional ; goal-oriented ; teleological) is what we call a "Trend" or "Tendency". In humans, an inclination toward some effect has an internal cause, which we call "Motivation" or "Emotion". In my thesis, I call the ultimate motivator, the Enformer : the source of both Momentum (inertial energy) and Direction (regulation, laws). Metaphorically, it's the Pool Shooter, who wants to put the eight-ball into the corner pocket. :joke:

Intention :
Intention is a mental state that represents a commitment to carrying out an action or actions in the future.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention
purpose or attitude toward the effect of one's actions or conduct:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/intention

The universe could have been an infinite number of different ways, but it chose just one way of being - a being towards order. — Pop

To say that the universe chose its "own way of being" implies that it is conscious and teleological : already a sentient being, who chooses a career. But, I see no evidence that the Temporal Universe As A Whole -- which contains sentient beings -- has reached the point of sentience.So again, I think the impetus that set this physical system on a certain path must have come from outside the system : from an eternal Multiverse, or an eternal Mind. Hence, the "way of being" of our world seems to have been set in the initial conditions (program) of the Big Bang. :nerd:

It seems frustratingly stupid to me, to think we can posses a singular quality nothing else in the universe possesses, although it is the prevalent dogma. We have a higher functioning form of consciousness, but everything possesses it to some degree. — Pop

Again, I make a distinction between the highly-evolved Consciousness (information processing) of humans, and the simpler exchanges of energy (EnFormAction) at the lowest levels of the world system. This cosmic hierarchy is enformed by EnFormAction at all levels, but only the peak of the pyramid is fully self-conscious. Pure Information is Mathematical & Logical (1 : 2 & one is related to two as . . .), but in its "higher functioning form", the information is Mental : conceptual & self-referential. Hence, Information (energy + laws) seems to be the "singular quality" that everything in the universe possesses. :chin:

Central to the self organizing system is an attractor, rather then a causal element, that is not to say causation can be excluded . — Pop

Yes. In Chaos Theory, a "strange attractor" seems to organize an otherwise random system into a relatively stable form, like a whirlpool in a calm pond. The proximate cause is not obvious within the random background. But the seeds of order (bias) are always lurking even within seeming chaos.

In his 2007 book, I Am A Strange Loop, Douglas Hofstadter claimed to have solved the Mind/Body problem by pointing to the Self-Reference & Recursion found in many dynamic systems. His conclusion was that he (his self, his soul) was a manifestation of a Strange Attractor, which spontaneously emerged from within the random collisions of particles in the physical system of the world.

Yet again, although a world-class genius, he was thinking inside the box. It's true that the seeds-of-self are innate in the world system of physics. But, like the old chicken & egg conundrum, it seems to result in an infinite regress, with no final solution. That's why I ask, "where did the seed of Life & Mind come from?". Even a seemingly self-creating Strange Attractor requires a system already programmed with the potential for new forms to arise from a patternless background. :wink:

Quine : A quine is a computer program which takes no input and produces a copy of its own source code as its only output. The standard terms for these programs in the computability theory and computer science literature are "self-replicating programs", "self-reproducing programs", and "self-copying programs". [ Note : the program still requires an external programmer ]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quine_(computing)

The hard problem of consciousness is only hard from a dualists perspective, from a monists - its hard to see there is a problem! — Pop

That's why my thesis is a Monism : the single Universal Substance (Spinoza) is Generic Information, or EnFormAction (the power to create novel forms). Hence, the Mind/Body knot unravels after you realize that both Mind & Matter are constructs of Energy + Laws.

Information :
When spelled with an “I”, Information is a noun, referring to data & things. When spelled with an “E”, Enformation is a verb, referring to energy and processes.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

- an emotion! Can an emotion be fundamental? Can an emotion explain the why of gravity, and physical laws? Does it underpin Enformy? — Pop

Emotions are the motivating force of human behavior. But I don't know what would motivate a World Creator to devise an evolving system of Energy + Laws, that cause such things as Gravity and Humanity to emerge from the random swirling of atoms. :cool: